European Elections are a Total Waste of Time

Today sees the biggest trans-national election in history - during which almost 500 million Europeans will have the chance to elect the 736 members of the European Parliament who will go and represent them in the European Union.

One tricky aspect of the European elections is that they're a TOTAL load of bunk.

The European Parliament is one of the most pathetic, powerless organizations in Democratic history. All major decisions - proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and generally running the EU - are made by the European Commission, the 'executive' of Europe itself, not the European Parliament.

The European Commission runs the EU. There are 27 European Commissioners, one for each country, and none of them are elected. They're selected by their nation's government (removing the voter from the equation entirely.)

The only body to whom the European Commission is accountable is the European Council - made up of the heads of state of all 27 member nations (effectively, the people who selected the European Commission in the first place.)

The European Commission can MAKE laws. They can EXECUTE laws. They can ENFORCE laws. In contrast, the European Parliament - the only body us Euro-plebs are permitted to elect, can do none of these things.

The European Parliament, in contrast to just about every Democratic parliament currently in existence, does not have the power of 'legislative initiative.' They can't make laws - only vote for laws proposed by the European Commission.

The EU Parliamentary Complex in Strasbourg

(...and history has shown that only 15% of such laws failed to pass the Parliamentary process - effectively making them little more than a rubber stamp for the unelected, unaccountable European Commission.)

In fact, the European Parliament's only real power is in being what's described as a 'pan-European soapbox.' They have the ear of the European Union's journalists and that's about it.

As far as actual power goes, the European Parliament is limited to issuing non-binding resolutions and forming committees. They are the ultimate demonstration of bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake.

They don't even have any real power over the European budget: The (unelected, unaccountable) European Commission controls the 'compulsory spending' and the European Parliament is thrown the 'non compulsory spending' as scraps, which they can bicker over while the real powers in Europe go about their business.

So while it is important for people in Europe to go out and vote today, nobody should kid themselves that it's going to make any difference.

The European Union is run by an unaccountable elite, who make decisions affecting everybody in the EU with a sort of detached, disdainful attitude. They're not subject to the voter's whims because, well, the voters can't be trusted with making decisions of this magnitude!

Just look at Ireland's referendum in 2008; in which normal, everyday voters were allowed to decide on adopting the 'European Constitution.' What happened? The voters rejected the Treaty of Lisbon.

The European Commissioners were quivering with anger. "Why couldn't the bloody Paddies just rubber stamp the damn Constitution like every other country in Europe had?"

The European Union is ridiculously undemocratic - which means, sadly, that just about every vote cast in the 2009 European Parliamentary Elections will be an entirely wasted one.

Why can't the Democrats be more Democratic?

Let's be honest here - the 2008 Presidential election is pretty much sewn up for the Democrats, whichever candidate they choose.

Or, at least, it would be if they didn't continue being such idiots about the whole thing!

The longer this primary drags out, the more chance the Dems have of blowing the whole shooting match.

On the other side, you've got to hand it to the Republicans. They are an incredibly focused and capable political machine. They've accepted the idea of doing whatever it takes to achieve victory; including compromising their conservative polemic and standing behind a man like John McCain (who crosses party lines on several key issues.)

They're a losing party with a winning strategy.

Dumbo Dems

What's highlighted by the skirmish for the Democratic candidacy is just how undemocratic the Democratic party really is. A lot of the angry rhetoric conservative pundits throw at the Democrats compares them to 'Stalinists.' Normally I find that comparison laughable - but dammit if there isn't a grain of truth buried in there somewhere!

Take, for instance, the decision to disenfranchise Democratic delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Those states chose to bring their primary dates forward, in order to make their state more important in the selection process. For breaking 'the rules' the Democratic party removed their right to send delegates to the Democratic Convention. They basically stopped their votes from counting.

Hardly very democratic!

Secondly, take the concept of the Super Delegates. These are 'important' Democrats, like state governors and the like, who have a 'bigger' vote than the standard Delegates at the convention. Basically, all Democratic Delegates are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

In a close knit race like the battle between Hillary and Obama, the Super Delegates are 'king makers.' Whatever the election results declare, the Super Delegates can go in and reverse the decision if they don't like it.

Again, hardly very Democratic! What's the point of having months of state-wide primary elections if the Super Delegates can swoop in and change the final count if they feel that democracy hasn't provided the 'right' answer.

And that's the core of the issue, isn't it? Despite being called the 'Democratic' party, the Democratic party elite are determined to control the electoral process so they end up with the result they want - the will of the voters be damned.

The fact that we're only two months away from the Democratic Convention and we're no closer to having a definitive winner has shown the American public only one thing - that the Democratic party is incapable of governing itself. Is that really the sort of organisation we want governing the country?

Unless the Democrats get united and organised, the answer to that question will come on election day.

Goodbye, Democracy. It was nice knowing you...

Well, we're in a right state at the moment. Globally, I mean. Democracy has taken rather a beating and things don't look like they're going to change any time soon.

First off, we have President Bush and Gordon Brown, leading the west.

President Bush, of course, didn't actually win the 2000 election that brought him into the White House (if you'll believe popular rumour, Al Gore actually won the popular vote, but capitulated before it hit the supreme courts.)

Gordon Brown, over in the UK, didn't even have to worry about a vote. He was rushed into 10 Downing Street on Tony Blair's coat tails and the Labour Party couldn't even muster enough enthusiasm to offer a token opposition (even if it was for entertainment value alone.)

The European Union, now nudging America off the financial top spot by a few GDP percentage points, is a ridiculously undemocratic organisation. Oh, sure, there's a European Parliament which has elected members chosen from each member state - but the executive branch of the European Union - the body that makes the laws, decisions and treaties regarding the running of the Union - is made up of 27 commissioners who are handpicked by their nation's government. Not one of these commissioners ever has to worry about an election.

So considering the West's atrocious recent history with democracy, it's no wonder that the petty crooks and wannabe generalissimos on the other side of the political spectrum are neatly sidestepping due process and trying to keep that riff raff 'public' out of the important business of running their tinpot dictatorships.

Poor old Hugo Chavez, who was attempting to abolish term limits so he could be 'el presidente' for life in oil-rich Venezuela, was dealt a blow when the people of his country nixed his little scheme. His fatal mistake, of course, was having a referendum in the first place. Although being democratically elected 'leader for life' worked for the likes of Adolf Hitler, the problem when you do things 'the right way' is that you don't always get the result you wanted.

Old Vladimir Putin, the new Iron Man of Russia, wasn't going to make the same mistake. He's proudly boasting about his recent victory in the polls - which awarded his United Russia Party with 70% of the seats in parliament.

He wisely decided not to risk involvement with the 'democratic' process and swept to victory on the back of what Gary Kasparov called: "the most unfair and dirtiest election in the whole history of modern Russia."

Gary should be careful what he says. Putin has a radioactive response to his more vocal critics, as demonstrated by the grisly fate of reporter Alexander Litvinenko - who was poisoned by a pellet of Polonium-210 traced back to Putin's old KGB buddies.

The 'bad guys' like Putain and Chavez will always be petty crooks and dictators - but much of the criticism we in the west level at their crooked political process is diluted by our less than exemplary recent history.

We can only hope that the next general election in Great Britain and the 2008 Presidential Election will bring a bit of openness, legitimacy and authority to the way the western world is run - and serve as a shining example to the rest of the world about how great democracy can really be.